Against Realism

#2
I think this poses serious questions for any realist metaphysical idea, such as structural realism or informational realism, or any other metaphysical ideas based on the world existing independent of our observation.
 
#5
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness
Date: May 27, 2015
...
Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
...
However, the random number determining whether the grating was added was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads.
...
If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.
...
"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said.
 
#8
Nice.

So... Can materialism be considered something that can overcome "proof" against realism and evolve into something else?

Most, if not virtually all, materialists are into realism, but not all realists are into materialism. By definition, the former is certainly more rigid, some people have argued that the fall of realism falsifies materialism as well, what's the take here?
 
#9
Nice.

So... Can materialism be considered something that can overcome "proof" against realism and evolve into something else?

Most, if not virtually all, materialists are into realism, but not all realists are into materialism. By definition, the former is certainly more rigid, some people have argued that the fall of realism falsifies materialism as well, what's the take here?
Well, I'm not sure "materialists" really exist these days (not in the strawman incarnation that helps your argument at least)

And I suspect realists are wearing that badge as it relates to the macro world. It's useful and pragmatic after all... Is anyone really not aware that things get really weird when thy get really small? The scientists I know are very humble about the mysteries of the universe.
 
#10
And I suspect realists are wearing that badge as it relates to the macro world. It's useful and pragmatic after all... Is anyone really not aware that things get really weird when thy get really small? The scientists I know are very humble about the mysteries of the universe.
Yeah, they all are... as long as they sit comfortably in their metaphysical assumptions.
Try mentioning anything that falls outside of that and you get as much hubris as you can get ;)
 
#11
Well, I'm not sure "materialists" really exist these days (not in the strawman incarnation that helps your argument at least)

And I suspect realists are wearing that badge as it relates to the macro world. It's useful and pragmatic after all... Is anyone really not aware that things get really weird when thy get really small? The scientists I know are very humble about the mysteries of the universe.
A few of them are hedging with the term, but you know well what I mean. There is no need to pull the Sam Harris card on me.
 
#12
Nice.

So... Can materialism be considered something that can overcome "proof" against realism and evolve into something else?

Most, if not virtually all, materialists are into realism, but not all realists are into materialism. By definition, the former is certainly more rigid, some people have argued that the fall of realism falsifies materialism as well, what's the take here?
I've read the article and done a bit of follow up reading. Right now I'm at the stage of trying to understand exactly what was done in this experiment.

I've downloaded the original paper (Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres) and will try and make heads or tails of it.

So right now I honestly don't have a very clear idea of what the implications should be of this experiment.
 
#15
Anton Zeilinger was once a guest lecturer at the University of Calgary and it was actually surprising the questions he entertained with enthusiasm. He seems to be quite disconnected from the idea of an objective reality and makes a good case for why.

While the majority of his Q & A was about the normalization of light (percentage of light hitting an object) because his talk was about QED and special relativity, he did entertain many questions about consciousness, philosophy and religion and he didn't seem to beat around the bush with some of his answers. He has quite an open mind, it seemed, and was it was a very engaging discussion (all though I didn't participate in asking any questions. I only listened).
 
#16
I think we need to remember that the conception of 'material' is not what it was 100 years ago. Material itself is 99% nothing, so calling it material in a certain sense is a misnomer.
Even "nothing" and the missing 1% arent clearly definable. Im guilty of that too, no doubts there, but the word material in connection to philosophy or methaphysical systems is used way too easily sometimes, even though it isnt clear at all what it is supposed to be.
 
#17
Even "nothing" and the missing 1% arent clearly definable. Im guilty of that too, no doubts there, but the word material in connection to philosophy or methaphysical systems is used way too easily sometimes, even though it isnt clear at all what it is supposed to be.
Well said DM. Labels can be meaningless and unhelpful. This place tends to encourage an obsession with them.
 
#18
Ebut the word material in connection to philosophy or methaphysical systems is used way too easily sometimes, even though it isnt clear at all what it is supposed to be.
Materialism is very well and clearly defined. Is this "oh, well, the terms aren't really defined and see . .blah, blah" the new pathetic hedge by it's proponents?
 
#20
Well said DM. Labels can be meaningless and unhelpful. This place tends to encourage an obsession with them.
Well, its somehow understandable - humans need to stick to labels to describe the world somehow. Problem is though that different people understand different things, even so they got the same label for it.
 
Top